I do still believe that we haven't had an absolute legit Batman film yet. This film is great, but you have to dig pretty deep to pull out all the great aspects of it. Even Batman Begins was just Nolan's view of the character.
Superman- 1970s Superman
Spider-man- 2002 SM
Batman-?

What constitutes an "absolute legit Batman film"? Even in the comics you get multiple interpretations / incarnations of the character depending on the era, author, etc. I think both Burton and Nolan's versions are perfectly "legit."

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

By a "legit" Batman film, I mean a film that has a perfect comic book/film aspect of Batman and not focused on anything but. There is no go-to Batman film to me. Every film had some sort of focus. 1989 was encompassed in style and theme/atmosphere. BB was grounded in realism and Nolan's own story. I feel that the Nolan films just used Batman and his mythos instead of making an actual film about Batman. Burton was great, but I feel that he put too much of his style on Batman. However, it sure does come close. I want a film that says, "Oh yeah, that is Batman". Burton, like I said, come close, but oh but too far.

I'd disagree with you there on Nolan, though I'm not the hugest fan of the realism interpretation. I prefer the dark fantasy noir Batman a la BTAS. But I also agree that the buck doesn't stop with Burton or Nolan - if I made a Bat movie my take would be much different than theirs. There are still many great Batfilms that can be made for sure.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

Of course I'm not attacking either film. But doesn't it seem that every film had a goal(Let me get technical for a second)
1989- Bring Batman back to his dark roots w/ Burton's style
Batman Begins- Reboot Batman and bring him back to his dark roots(again) with Nolan's style

I wouldn't say he nailed Bruce Waynes character. Val looked more like Bruce than Keaton or Clooney no doubt, and he had more to do as Wayne than Keaton in Batman Returns. But he didn't nail the playboy billionaire "persona". He also didn't have that darkness that Bale and Keaton had. So i disagree.

Haha, ya i hear ya.

With Begins, it's more accurate to the contemporary version of the character but even the, really lacked the Gothic aspects of the character and of Gotham City though I think that's because Begins was going for more of the feel of Batman Year One.

With Kilmer, while he didn't have as blatant a billionaire persona, he was pretty much on par with Keaton on that role. Also, he also had Darkness to him, but it was more restrained and reserved because of the events of Burton's movies. Kilmer's Bruce had matured from the previous movies, hence why he doesn't kill anymore along with him trying to distance himself from women as Batman.

With Batman, neither are close to the comics in terms of faithfulness compared to other comic properties.

The Batman of 39 was definitely not some sort of depressed guy suffering from Asperger's syndrome.

The character and the themes behind the duality had been explored so much between 39 and 89, so of course they aren't the same. And if that glib Asperger's comment was actually an accurate representation of Keaton's Wayne, he certainly wouldn't have a thrown a huge party at his house to "save the festival." And he certainly wouldn't be seen walking about town to honour the place where his parents died. He probably wouldn't be having sexual relations with Vicki Vale either.

I think what we saw (mostly in the 89 film) with Keaton's Batman was that he was questioning within himself as to why he was Batman. The pain over the loss of his parents was still very evident in Keaton's portrayal, and I think it showed... he tried to deny it, and couldn't... and so, he needed to keep "being Batman." They explored this theme a bit more in Batman Returns of course and he seemed more "at peace" with who he was and what he was doing as Batman.

I do still believe that we haven't had an absolute legit Batman film yet. This film is great, but you have to dig pretty deep to pull out all the great aspects of it. Even Batman Begins was just Nolan's view of the character.
Superman- 1970s SupermanSpider-man- 2002 SM
Batman-?

Raimi's first Spider-Man was very similar to Burton's first Batman. SpiderMan 1 and to a larger extent, Spider-Man 3 were just as much "Raimis version of Spider-Man" as Batman 89/Returns were "Tim Burtons version of Batman". I may be in the minority here, but i believe Marc Webbs interpretation to be more accurate than Raimis first go at the character.

Tobey was great and likeable, but he never looked like Peter Parker to me. He was always more woosy than what i saw for Spider-Man, not nearly enough of smart-ass trash talking in the suit, organic webs, a very different suit for Green Goblin than looked more campy than scary. It's entertaining but felt like a half-assed origin to me. Raimi made up for it with the sequel and buried it with the 3rd. Even though Burton's best film was his first, he still twisted things around to fit "his" take on Batman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spidermanJLA!~

By a "legit" Batman film, I mean a film that has a perfect comic book/film aspect of Batman and not focused on anything but. There is no go-to Batman film to me. Every film had some sort of focus. 1989 was encompassed in style and theme/atmosphere. BB was grounded in realism and Nolan's own story. I feel that the Nolan films just used Batman and his mythos instead of making an actual film about Batman. Burton was great, but I feel that he put too much of his style on Batman. However, it sure does come close. I want a film that says, "Oh yeah, that is Batman". Burton, like I said, come close, but oh but too far.

I agree that we haven't had a full-on 100 % accurate Batman movie. I'm sure the reboot will supply that for the fans. Dark stylized fantasy and fun, with serious scripts and actors with emotion and physicality. Accurate origins and looks for the villains. But then again..that's just the best of ALL worlds of Batman isn't it? What exactly is accurate, when the history has given us so many different eras?

Nolans trilogy was pretty accurate to the Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb way of thinking.

Ill agree with you about Burton. The style over substance things comes up a lot. When you look at 89' (visually) you see Gotham, Batman and Joker...and i say "that's Batman!". Yet everything else is far-off.

I disagree with you on this line "I feel that the Nolan films just used Batman and his mythos instead of making an actual film about Batman." Batman Begins, the story, characters, felt more like Batman to me than Burtons movies even though the visual was more grounded and he used a lot of real locations. The films were more about Batman first and foremost than Burtons, who used the character as a backdrop. The villains were at the front. 89 could have been called Joker. Returns could have been called "Penguin" or "Catwoman".

It wasn't just Nolans own story. It was Year One and The Man Who Falls. Absolutely a Bruce Wayne/Batman centric film, and it's pretty damn accurate to that era. You're just thinking Batman 89' screamed it to you, because ur Gotham City is more gothic (when modern comics do show the city realistically like a New York) & because Batman shows up right away in Burtons first flick. So it SCREAMS BATMAN right away.

With regards to accuracy compared to the comics, I think that's a moot point since the comics have changed so much over the years.

Burton's Batman lifts from Bob Kane's original vision of a very dark anti-hero, but tones him down slightly to make him more sympathetic. Read a Batman comic lately? The same problems I found with the post-Burton movie Batmen are present in the modern comics as well. Batman often appears ineffective in a medium that is supposed to empower the writers to make him the ultimate outsider... the ultimate doer and bad-ass. But no, even there he always seems stuck between being Alexander the Great and Gandhi. They can't decide what they want him to be. DC wants him to be dark and edgy while still trying to keep his hands clean. That's impossible as far as I'm concerned. He can either be a bright upstanding public hero or a terrifying Dark Knight. They should pick one and stay with it.

There is no such inconsistency in Burton's movies. Burton is crystal clear about his Batman being an anti-hero through and through. He doesn't care about 'image' and 'popularity'. He won't play nice just because a clueless public think he's a bad role model for their little kids. Like I said in my first post, Burton Batman will go all the way to ensure the safety of his city. And that means getting his hands dirty occasionally.

Now, on to Bruce Wayne. In the Burton movies, Bruce Wayne acts as Batman's daylight power player behind the scenes. He gets things done through public proxies like Gordon and the Mayor. He won't draw too much publicity to himself as Bruce Wayne because that will make Wayne a liability instead of an asset to Batman's cause.

Bruce works behind the scenes to make sure the machinery is oiled and that the system doesn't crush the innocent accidentally. Burton Bruce is completely disinterested in playing the wealthy socialite/movie star. He is serious to a fault, and comes across as a good upstanding (private) citizen. He sometimes even drives himself places in a perfectly ordinary sedan. People who meet him think he's quirky, but they forgive him his quirks because he's rich and generous with his money. And you know what? Now that I'm older, I really like this Bruce Wayne. He feels like a real person instead of a worn out trope, and he's a refreshing change from the usual portrayal in the other movies and the comics.

I think Burton made a Bruce Wayne who, frankly, makes a lot more sense than the socialite/movie star type I see in most other versions. The excuse given for him being such a public figure in those versions is that he needs to be seen as a playboy idiot to throw off suspicion, blah-blah-blah. Well, that's just nonsense. Real life rich people who come from old wealth are averse to being in tabloids. They'll threaten litigation against any paparazzi stupid enough to come close, or any news outlet that dares to slander their name. They are private citizens, not actors or public figures.

Knox is a great way to highlight all of this. His lines explain it all. "The rich. You know why they're so odd? Because they can afford to be." "Lieutenant, is there a six foot bat in Gotham city? And if so is he on the police payroll? And if so what's he pulling down after taxes?" So Knox believes Batman is a super cop on the police payroll, and that is a perfectly logical and sound theory for anyone not in the know.

Vicki: There's nothing in these files. No photos , no histories, no nothing. Who is this guy?

Knox: Who cares? Forget Bruce Wayne. I want the Batman...

lol. Poor Knox. Missing Batman's daylight disguise makes him look stupid, right? Wrong. Knox is clearly no dummy, and thus is a great way to show the effectiveness of Bruce's approach.

Debatable. Keep in mind that in the 70s or under Frank Miller there wasn't really so much "stylized" architecture going on. In the 70s they even had a streak of realism, like no real Batmobile for some time and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by axecrazy

With regards to accuracy compared to the comics, I think that's a moot point since the comics have changed so much over the years.

Burton's Batman lifts from Bob Kane's original vision of a very dark anti-hero, but tones him down slightly to make him more sympathetic.

More sympathetic? The "original vision" showed a Batman who made funny remarks and didn't seem overly disturbed or something.

Raimi's first Spider-Man was very similar to Burton's first Batman. SpiderMan 1 and to a larger extent, Spider-Man 3 were just as much "Raimis version of Spider-Man" as Batman 89/Returns were "Tim Burtons version of Batman". I may be in the minority here, but i believe Marc Webbs interpretation to be more accurate than Raimis first go at the character.

Tobey was great and likeable, but he never looked like Peter Parker to me. He was always more woosy than what i saw for Spider-Man, not nearly enough of smart-ass trash talking in the suit, organic webs, a very different suit for Green Goblin than looked more campy than scary. It's entertaining but felt like a half-assed origin to me. Raimi made up for it with the sequel and buried it with the 3rd. Even though Burton's best film was his first, he still twisted things around to fit "his" take on Batman.

I agree that we haven't had a full-on 100 % accurate Batman movie. I'm sure the reboot will supply that for the fans. Dark stylized fantasy and fun, with serious scripts and actors with emotion and physicality. Accurate origins and looks for the villains. But then again..that's just the best of ALL worlds of Batman isn't it? What exactly is accurate, when the history has given us so many different eras?

Nolans trilogy was pretty accurate to the Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb way of thinking.

Ill agree with you about Burton. The style over substance things comes up a lot. When you look at 89' (visually) you see Gotham, Batman and Joker...and i say "that's Batman!". Yet everything else is far-off.

I disagree with you on this line "I feel that the Nolan films just used Batman and his mythos instead of making an actual film about Batman." Batman Begins, the story, characters, felt more like Batman to me than Burtons movies even though the visual was more grounded and he used a lot of real locations. The films were more about Batman first and foremost than Burtons, who used the character as a backdrop. The villains were at the front. 89 could have been called Joker. Returns could have been called "Penguin" or "Catwoman".

It wasn't just Nolans own story. It was Year One and The Man Who Falls. Absolutely a Bruce Wayne/Batman centric film, and it's pretty damn accurate to that era. You're just thinking Batman 89' screamed it to you, because ur Gotham City is more gothic (when modern comics do show the city realistically like a New York) & because Batman shows up right away in Burtons first flick. So it SCREAMS BATMAN right away.

You're absolutely right. Nolan's films didn't scream Batman to me like the 1989 one did. Don't get me wrong, though. Batman Begins is my favorite Batman movie. I can't pinpoint it, but something about BB made it more entertaining to me than TDK/TDKR. You know, now that think about it, can you imagine a Batman film with collaboration between Burton/Nolan? That would be great.

More sympathetic? The "original vision" showed a Batman who made funny remarks and didn't seem overly disturbed or something.

Which leads us to another point:No film has perfectly defined Batman yet. What do you think of when you think of the character?(Everyone) I think of him as close to the DCAU version. A dark, serious character who has an amazing skill set.

You're absolutely right. Nolan's films didn't scream Batman to me like the 1989 one did. Don't get me wrong, though. Batman Begins is my favorite Batman movie. I can't pinpoint it, but something about BB made it more entertaining to me than TDK/TDKR. You know, now that think about it, can you imagine a Batman film with collaboration between Burton/Nolan? That would be great.

It would certainly please every Batman fan i think. Cuz you would have the best of both worlds on film. It would be insane. Burtons visuals with Nolans level of writing/depth but with the accuracy of The Animated Series + certain eras from the comics. Arkham City is a good starting point as well.

Which leads us to another point:No film has perfectly defined Batman yet. What do you think of when you think of the character?(Everyone) I think of him as close to the DCAU version. A dark, serious character who has an amazing skill set.

Well, "dark" and "serious" are not very defining words to use. What do you mean by "dark"? That he hides in the shadows? Or that he is mentally not-quite-right? "Serious"? When is someone not serious? Can a human being not be serious? Does cracking a joke or being happy stop you from being serious?

I think a "best of both worlds" Burton/Nolan combination would be too much of a sugar rush for my head. I'd cease to have any form of objectivity as I'd be reduced to a blubbering fanboy . I'm sure someone in the future will take inspiration from both of their styles for their own vision, but I'm pretty sure those two men would not work well together at all as directors, lol. They both have such distinct, but absolute visions.

The mannerisms Bruce Wayne showed where like those he'd shown in the comics by that point. Not. At. All.

Again, we're talking about printed pages vs. live action as interpreted by a performer. The printed page of a comic cannot wholly capture all subtle nuances that come forth when an actor portrays a character.

Debatable. Keep in mind that in the 70s or under Frank Miller there wasn't really so much "stylized" architecture going on. In the 70s they even had a streak of realism, like no real Batmobile for some time and so on.